* 'sched/for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip:
sched: hrtick_enabled() should use cpu_active()
sched, x86: clean up hrtick implementation
sched: fix build error, provide partition_sched_domains() unconditionally
sched: fix warning in inc_rt_tasks() to not declare variable 'rq' if it's not needed
cpu hotplug: Make cpu_active_map synchronization dependency clear
cpu hotplug, sched: Introduce cpu_active_map and redo sched domain managment (take 2)
sched: rework of "prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratable ones"
sched: reduce stack size in isolated_cpu_setup()
Revert parts of "ftrace: do not trace scheduler functions"
Fixed up conflicts in include/asm-x86/thread_info.h (due to the
TIF_SINGLESTEP unification vs TIF_HRTICK_RESCHED removal) and
kernel/sched_fair.c (due to cpu_active_map vs for_each_cpu_mask_nr()
introduction).
random uvesafb failures were reported against Gentoo:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222799
and Mihai Moldovan bisected it back to:
> 8f4d37ec07 is first bad commit
> commit 8f4d37ec07
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:29 2008 +0100
>
> sched: high-res preemption tick
Linus suspected it to be hrtick + vm86 interaction and observed:
> Btw, Peter, Ingo: I think that commit is doing bad things. They aren't
> _incorrect_ per se, but they are definitely bad.
>
> Why?
>
> Using random _TIF_WORK_MASK flags is really impolite for doing
> "scheduling" work. There's a reason that arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> special-cases the _TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag: we don't want to exit out of
> vm86 mode unnecessarily.
>
> See the "work_notifysig_v86" label, and how it does that
> "save_v86_state()" thing etc etc.
Right, I never liked having to fiddle with those TIF flags. Initially I
needed it because the hrtimer base lock could not nest in the rq lock.
That however is fixed these days.
Currently the only reason left to fiddle with the TIF flags is remote
wakeups. We cannot program a remote cpu's hrtimer. I've been thinking
about using the new and improved IPI function call stuff to implement
hrtimer_start_on().
However that does require that smp_call_function_single(.wait=0) works
from interrupt context - /me looks at the latest series from Jens - Yes
that does seem to be supported, good.
Here's a stab at cleaning this stuff up ...
Mihai reported test success as well.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Tested-by: Mihai Moldovan <ionic@ionic.de>
Cc: Michal Januszewski <spock@gentoo.org>
Cc: Antonino Daplas <adaplas@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This is based on Linus' idea of creating cpu_active_map that prevents
scheduler load balancer from migrating tasks to the cpu that is going
down.
It allows us to simplify domain management code and avoid unecessary
domain rebuilds during cpu hotplug event handling.
Please ignore the cpusets part for now. It needs some more work in order
to avoid crazy lock nesting. Although I did simplfy and unify domain
reinitialization logic. We now simply call partition_sched_domains() in
all the cases. This means that we're using exact same code paths as in
cpusets case and hence the test below cover cpusets too.
Cpuset changes to make rebuild_sched_domains() callable from various
contexts are in the separate patch (right next after this one).
This not only boots but also easily handles
while true; do make clean; make -j 8; done
and
while true; do on-off-cpu 1; done
at the same time.
(on-off-cpu 1 simple does echo 0/1 > /sys/.../cpu1/online thing).
Suprisingly the box (dual-core Core2) is quite usable. In fact I'm typing
this on right now in gnome-terminal and things are moving just fine.
Also this is running with most of the debug features enabled (lockdep,
mutex, etc) no BUG_ONs or lockdep complaints so far.
I believe I addressed all of the Dmitry's comments for original Linus'
version. I changed both fair and rt balancer to mask out non-active cpus.
And replaced cpu_is_offline() with !cpu_active() in the main scheduler
code where it made sense (to me).
Signed-off-by: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@qualcomm.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com
Cc: pj@sgi.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
We have the notion of tracking process-coupling (a.k.a. buddy-wake) via
the p->se.last_wake / p->se.avg_overlap facilities, but it is only used
for cfs to cfs interactions. There is no reason why an rt to cfs
interaction cannot share in establishing a relationhip in a similar
manner.
Because PREEMPT_RT runs many kernel threads as FIFO priority, we often
times have heavy interaction between RT threads waking CFS applications.
This patch offers a substantial boost (50-60%+) in perfomance under those
circumstances.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: npiggin@suse.de
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Measurement shows that the difference between cgroup:/ and cgroup:/foo
wake_affine() results is that the latter succeeds significantly more.
Therefore bias the calculations towards failing the test.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Increase the accuracy of the effective_load values.
Not only consider the current increment (as per the attempted wakeup), but
also consider the delta between when we last adjusted the shares and the
current situation.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Currently task_h_load() computes the load of a task and uses that to either
subtract it from the total, or add to it.
However, removing or adding a task need not have any effect on the total load
at all. Imagine adding a task to a group that is local to one cpu - in that
case the total load of that cpu is unaffected.
So properly compute addition/removal:
s_i = S * rw_i / \Sum_j rw_j
s'_i = S * (rw_i + wl) / (\Sum_j rw_j + wg)
then s'_i - s_i gives the change in load.
Where s_i is the shares for cpu i, S the group weight, rw_i the runqueue weight
for that cpu, wl the weight we add (subtract) and wg the weight contribution to
the runqueue.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
doing the load balance will change cfs_rq->load.weight (that's the whole point)
but since that's part of the scale factor, we'll scale back with a different
amount.
Weight getting smaller would result in an inflated moved_load which causes
it to stop balancing too soon.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
With hierarchical grouping we can't just compare task weight to rq weight - we
need to scale the weight appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
While thinking about the previous patch - I realized that using per domain
aggregate load values in load_balance_fair() is wrong. We should use the
load value for that CPU.
By not needing per domain hierarchical load values we don't need to store
per domain aggregate shares, which greatly simplifies all the math.
It basically falls apart in two separate computations:
- per domain update of the shares
- per CPU update of the hierarchical load
Also get rid of the move_group_shares() stuff - just re-compute the shares
again after a successful load balance.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The idea was to balance groups until we've reached the global goal, however
Vatsa rightly pointed out that we might never reach that goal this way -
hence take out this logic.
[ the initial rationale for this 'feature' was to promote max concurrency
within a group - it does not however affect fairness ]
Reported-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Keeping the aggregate on the first cpu of the sched domain has two problems:
- it could collide between different sched domains on different cpus
- it could slow things down because of the remote accesses
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Uncouple buddy selection from wakeup granularity.
The initial idea was that buddies could run ahead as far as a normal task
can - do this by measuring a pair 'slice' just as we do for a normal task.
This means we can drop the wakeup_granularity back to 5ms.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Ok, so why are we in this mess, it was:
1/w
but now we mixed that rw in the mix like:
rw/w
rw being \Sum w suggests: fiddling w, we should also fiddle rw, humm?
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
calc_delta_asym() is supposed to do the same as calc_delta_fair() except
linearly shrink the result for negative nice processes - this causes them
to have a smaller preemption threshold so that they are more easily preempted.
The problem is that for task groups se->load.weight is the per cpu share of
the actual task group weight; take that into account.
Also provide a debug switch to disable the asymmetry (which I still don't
like - but it does greatly benefit some workloads)
This would explain the interactivity issues reported against group scheduling.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
